Science needs more... Women!

Nonsense. Women are not children. Women care about truth. Women also care about getting an agreement.
Truth and agreement are not mutually exclusive.

All proposed without proof or even substantial evidence (except for women not being children… which wasn’t proposed).

I have more respect for women than you do?

Everyone has a unique set of abilities, most of which do not depend on his/her genitals.

Bullshit.
I respect them for what they are, not the males you fantasize them to be.

You respect the little woman?

She can cook for you. Clean for you. Take care of your ‘needs’.

Unlike you, merely promoting the new world order of blinded socialist drones, I appreciate people for what they are without the need to pervert them into something they are not. The women that I know most are professors and laborers for government and industry, and even politicians. I know very few of your “little women” to take care of my needs.

And why do You call them “little women”. What the hell is wrong with you? Why do you call them “little”?
You seem to hate women as they are.

ROFL, I do think phyllo was being sarcastic James. I think it meant that you view women as such. :slight_smile:

What is that “existing foundation”?
Are you talking about a priori knowledge?
Or something else?

I’m pretty sure that he is referring to the fallacious idea that all knowledge is derived from prior presumptions. For many people, that is true, but not for all. It is a typical over-generalization, presumed to be an absolute, universal fact and used in the effort to discredit anyone claiming anything other than what is preached from the Secular pulpit.

I personally, don’t derive what I believe based on prior knowledge, but rather based on the lack of alternatives, “Logic”.

Do you really believe “logic” is not based on anything?
Say “no” and an avalance of assumption/ axioms of “Logic” will come your way… :sunglasses:

Remember Russell…

What’s in there?
Only what you bring with you.
[…]
The cave…
Remember your failure at the cave…

Certainly it is based upon something.
It is based on “A is A”, the necessary construct of all thought.
It is only declaring that whatever I call something, I must maintain consistency in calling it that, else whatever I think about it, is meaningless.

I remember many idiots and their failures.
“Most people are idiots, therefore whatever people say is idiotic.” - Idiot.

Like the determinism argument where choice is completely dependent on the person’s state , innovation is also a choice. It also depends on the person’s physical state, his/her accumulated memory.